# [geocentrism] Moon Rotation

• From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
• To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:03:59 -0800 (PST)

```“where this rotation thread is going (note, not where it has been)?”  A never
ending circle I’m afraid…..to end up in curt coments of which I must admit am
enjoying far too much….

Phil is right about this…” From what I believed, Allen has been postulating MS
science unrelated to geocentrism..”…at least exclusivley, I have been adressing
both systems....The two systems must be geometrically equivalent, otherwise
there is a problem with one or the other or both. Since motion is relative to
other bodies, this includes rotation…The correct answer, wrt the rotaion of the
moon, must then be identical to both systems.

I must regress a little now…
This is particularly true when we consider the question of where to draw the
perimeter at the earth moon system or the edge of the solar system how about at
the Galaxy…If we are considering the motions of any of those particular sets we
cannot go outside them to extrapolate additional relative motions for
rotations. Thus all motions must be considered relative only to all other
bodies in the system under consideration. If on the other hand we use the
relative rotation of all matter in the universe then we are back at the same
spot we began. Every motion must be relative to something else this holds true
for rotational motion as well, Otherwise, what defines it?

The arguments and demonstrations I have put forward stand on their own. I will
point once again to my previous and attached here diagram….There is only one
rotation there, because only the relative motions of any parts to it can be
considered with respect to the whole..If I include a observer then the
perimeter of the evaluation extends but not the criteria for what is and is not
motion. Albeit I’m sure folks with vivid imaginations can certainly envision
billions upon billions of rotations, one for each molecule around their own
axis in the plate as well as the very center molecule in the plate, which is
the only thing in rotation on its on axis in the plate and this is defined by
the rest of the molecules in the plate.…..This would no doubt not create any
problem for Phil or Paul. Even though every other molecule in the plate keeps
the same orientation wrt that center molecule which is rotating on its own
axis.  They are however now left without
a clear definition of what motion is, since there is no relative motion
between the molecules in the plate and the center molecule. Yet they are
claiming  motion exist…but with a very novel idea……ummmm ..motion without being
relative.....…

--- On Wed, 12/3/08, Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Moon Rotation
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 9:27 AM

“where this rotation thread is going (note, not where it has been)?”  A never
ending circle I’m afraid…..to end up in curt coments of which I must admit am
enjoying far too much….

Phil is right about this…” From what I believed, Allen has been postulating MS
science unrelated to geocentrism..”…The two systems must be geometrically
equivalent, otherwise there is a problem with one or the other or both. Since
motion is relative to other bodies, this includes rotation…The correct answer
must then be identical in both systems.

I must regress a little now…
This is particularly true when we consider the question of where to draw the
perimeter at the earth moon system or the edge of the solar system how about at
the Galaxy…If we are considering the motions of any of those particular sets we
cannot go outside them to extrapolate additional relative motions for
rotations. Thus all motions must be considered relative only to all other
bodies in the system under consideration. If on the other hand we use the
relative rotation of all matter in the universe then we are back at the same
spot we began. Every motion must be relative to something else this holds true
for rotational motion as well, Otherwise, what defines it?

The arguments and demonstrations I have put forward stand on their own. I will
point once again to my previous and attached here diagram….There is only one
rotation there, because only the relative motions of any parts to it can be
considered with respect to the whole..If I include a observer then the
perimeter of the evaluation extends but not the criteria for what is and is not
motion. Albeit I’m sure folks with vivid imaginations can certainly envision
billions upon billions of rotations, one for each molecule around their own
axis in the plate as well as the very center molecule in the plate, which is
the only thing in rotation on its on axis in the plate and this is defined by
the rest of the molecules in the plate.…..This would no doubt not create any
problem for Phil or Paul. Even though every other molecule in the plate keeps
the same orientation wrt that center molecule which is rotating on its own
axis.  They are however now left without
a clear definition of what motion is, since there is no relative motion
between the molecules in the plate and the center molecule. Yet they are
claiming  motion exist…but with a very novel idea……ummmm ..motion without being
relative.....…

```